# Righting the wrong information in the world



## shrtcrt (Jan 29, 2006)

After reading this blog  entry from Heather, it reminded me of something. I was helping a client set up a new merchant account and he was also interested in another one to sell cigars online. I asked this company if they accepted merchants who wanted to sell cigars online. They told me no because it was illegal to sell cigars online. I informed them that they were mistaken and that is was LEGAL to sell them online. They forwarded me a copy of the memo that said so and after reading it, it only mentioned cigarettes. I informed them of this and they said thank you, but the underwriters refused to accept that kind of business.

I take it as one small step forward.


----------



## Research-Colin-cl (May 17, 2007)

keep on fighting the good fight. A little reading can reveal some amazing things - usually at least the letters on the page.


----------



## l0venpeace-cl (Apr 10, 2007)

Ha, someone reads our blog!

Anyways, it is eye opening how many people won't do business with a cigar shop. It's like the scarlet letter or something.


----------



## shrtcrt (Jan 29, 2006)

I know. It is a bit crazy. Oh you sell tobacco, shame on you! People don't want to understand the differences of cigarettes and cigars. They would rather lump it all together and be done with it. I bet some of them would be appalled if you just lumped all wine or alcohol together. I just really hate double standards.


----------



## l0venpeace-cl (Apr 10, 2007)

That was the smartest thing the wine ever did was separate themselves from booze. That's what the RTDA is trying to do for cigars now. Smart from a marketing stand point, but I feel bad for the cigarette smokers who are getting left in the cold.


----------



## CubanLink-cl (Jul 13, 2007)

shrtcrt said:


> They forwarded me a copy of the memo that said so and after reading it, it only mentioned cigarettes. I informed them of this and they said thank you, but the underwriters refused to accept that kind of business.


Nice catch on the memo. You'd make a good lawyer.


----------



## shrtcrt (Jan 29, 2006)

CubanLink said:


> Nice catch on the memo. You'd make a good lawyer.


Thanks, but right now I write code  I just hate when people have their facts wrong!


----------



## alanf (Jan 12, 2007)

Todays Cigar has been shut down for months while trying to get online credit card processing. I will be very surprised if they ever get going again.


----------



## shrtcrt (Jan 29, 2006)

we need to find cigar friendly merchants and post that information.


----------



## alanf (Jan 12, 2007)

Well someone obviously does it. I've never had a problem with CI, Holts, JR and a bunch of smaller online cigar shops. So someone, somewhere does process these transactions.


----------



## sysrock (May 24, 2007)

Hey shrtcrt, would you mind posting the memo?


----------



## shrtcrt (Jan 29, 2006)

sysrock said:


> Hey shrtcrt, would you mind posting the memo?


No problem. I was surprised I found it.


----------



## havanitascigars-cl (Apr 29, 2007)

The cigar industry should not seperate from the cigarette industry. They would be stronger together. One of the strenths of the liquior and beer industry is their unity. Try putting a tax on beer like Congress is trying to do with cigars. Or try taxing whiskey so heavily. It does not fly because of the powerful lobby behind the alcohol industry. Wine has snob appeal. Cigars do not. 

Where is the campaign to refute the studies against secondhand smoke. Did you know the results of the study were released before the study was even done? Did you know that research that did not support the conclusion were tossed out? Did you know that the most comprehensive study on secondhand smoke was done in Germany over 35 years and monitored the actual subjects, but it was not acknowledged because it showed no adverse effects? Did you know that at least 5 studies actually showed a lower incidence of lung cancer amongst children who grew up in homes where smoking occured? Did you know the standard deviation of error was doubled so that the research would show secondhand smoke is dangerous? Did you know that by the rules of scientific statistics, the results of all the secondhand smoke studies that show it is dangerous are statistically insignificant with an occurrence rate of less than 20%? 

The cigarette industry has the money to get this message out, but do not do so because of a lack of unity. A unified effort could help the industry become stronger. Maybe not as strong as the liquor lobby, but at least they could get their message out beyond readers of the smoking magazines.


----------



## alanf (Jan 12, 2007)

I'm about 1/2 way through the 2006 "The Health Conseqences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke. A Report of the Surgeon General" (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke). At 700+ pages of scientific studies, it takes some time to read. But any scientist who makes the following statement: "The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" (pg 30) should be looked at as disgenerous. Statements such as this indicate that the conclusions are political and not scientific. This means that there are safe exposures to all carcinogens except 2nd-hand smoke? Amazing, simply amazing.


----------

